Vaccination Research Proposal

Introduction
As you may be well aware of, I advocate being wholly informed of both sides of the story when it comes to vaccinations. An informed decision is the best decision. However, too many people put too little effort into researching vaccinations: their ingredients, their immediate effects, their long term effects, their efficacy, their necessity, etc. Sadly, people research major purchases (eg, car, television, vacation, etc.) more than they do what they inject/ingest in their body. As a tremendously curious student of life and a future Chiropractor, I am of the opinion that most, if not all, vaccinations are unnecessary. I do not claim to have hard-core proof of such a mindset at this point in time. (Though I do claim there is not hard-core proof to the contrary.) I do propose, however, a research study that could be performed that would convince most of the people who currently oppose my mindset.

Background
It is a physiological fact that antibodies are produced with exposure to an antigen. Diseases, such as measles, mumps, and rubella, have their own specific antigen. When the body comes in contact with those diseases, diseases-specific antibodies are produced. One specific type of antibody, IgG, that is produced remains in a person for a significant period of time after exposure. That means if you were ever exposed to measles then you would have the measles IgG in your system long after exposure.

It should be mentioned that "exposure" can come from a vaccinations for the disease or directly from the pathogens that cause that disease. It should also be noted that exposure to the pathogens that cause a disease does not necessarily imply you contract the disease. If this was the case no one would be alive today to have this discourse. What it means is that you were exposed to it but defended it successfully.

Proposed Study
My study involves taking two groups of people and compare their IgG levels for certain diseases. One group of people would be those who were vaccinated (Group 1) for disease x and the other group would be those who were not vaccinated for disease x (Group 2). Compare their disease x IgG levels, making sure the average age of the participants are the same. There are three logical scenarios that would result from such a study.

Scenario 1: Group 1 > Group 2
This means Group 1 has higher IgG levels than Group 2. This would make sense in that only Group 1 has been exposed to the disease via their vaccination.

Scenario 2: Group 1 = Group 2
This means both groups have the same IgG levels. This would be an interesting scenario in that it would mean the Group 2 was also exposed to the disease and is now just as protected against it as Group 1.

Scenario 3: Group 1 < Group 2
This means Group 1 has lower IgG levels than Group 2. This would be a startling discovery. This would imply the natural exposure to the disease is more effective than exposure via vaccination.

Conclusions
I think it is obvious that Scenarios 2 and 3 would debunk the efficacy of vaccination for that disease. I would submit Scenario 1 would debunk the necessity of vaccination for that disease. Given that there is not a scenario in which vaccinations are necessary and/or effective, the counter argument could be that the rate of morbidity (contracting the disease but persevering through it) and/or mortality (contracting the disease but dying because of it) in the two groups would differ. I concede that point and offer to analyze that in the study as well.